Sedona Leaf, LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee of LSF9 Master Participation Trust
The Sixth District reversed a summary final judgment of foreclosure, holding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to U.S. Bank's standing to enforce a lost note. To re-establish a lost note under section 673.3091, the enforcing party must prove an unbroken chain of assignments establishing ownership; here the record showed BOA's sale to an intermediate entity but no evidence that the note was ever placed into the trust or conveyed to U.S. Bank, and counsel's hearing 'elaboration' could not cure the evidentiary gap.
Key facts
- A 2007 promissory note for $500,000 secured by a Windermere mortgage was assigned through MERS to Bank of America (BOA), bore a blank endorsement, and was lost during BOA's ownership.
- The borrower defaulted in 2012 and quit-claimed the property to Sedona Leaf, LLC in 2014.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- Where a defendant puts standing at issue, a foreclosure plaintiff not in possession of the note must satisfy section 673.3091 by proving an unbroken chain of assignments establishing that…
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Why it matters
A clean restatement of foreclosure-standing and lost-note doctrine that practitioners on both sides should heed: a lender relying on a lost-note affidavit must document each link in the chain of ownership, and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.